Final Report Summary - BATP (Britons and their pasts)
Project objectives and methodology
The objectives of this project were to understand the ways in which individuals connect to the past through family history. The research sought to test the findings of two large surveys conducted in the United States and in Australia, both of which found that the most trusted form of historical knowledge is that transmitted within the family, and through eyewitness accounts. This focus upon family memory has been described negatively as representing a 'privatised and parochial past' (Rosenzweig and Thelen, 1998, 186). However, these surveys did not investigate the transmission of family memory in depth, which this project seeks to rectify by exploring the intergenerational oral transmission of historical knowledge within multi-generational families, and the influence of this knowledge upon contemporary identity and popular historical consciousness.
Twelve families were recorded, ranging from four to two generations. Random sampling was used as the primary means to find the oral history cohort, in order to maximise socio-economic diversity among the participants and reach those outside established community elites. Through a random sample of electoral lists in two parliamentary electorates, 300 individuals were contacted by mail. The electorates were selected for their differing socio-economic profiles: Turo and St Austell is primarily small town and rural; Devonport, Plymouth is urban with a large working-class population. The interview cohort finally consisted of twelve families, one of four generations, three of three generations, and eight of two generations. Men and women participated in five families, and women only in seven families.
Interviews were recorded with each individual in the setting of their choice, usually their home. Self-directed life narratives were followed by questions relating to specific topics the researchers wished to raise or explore further. Two broad themes informed the interview questions: the role of material objects as mnemonic devices carrying family history across generations, and the ways in which the family passed on family history orally through stories. In both cases the existing research and historiography is contradictory. On one hand historians argue that families no longer follow mnemonic practices such as visiting cemeteries, while others argue that the family home has become a shrine to the past. Secondly, there is little agreement on the extent to which families pass on oral history or traditions in contemporary western societies.
Results and conclusions
Our conclusions circle around three dimensions of family memory: mnemonic practices and material culture; family storytelling; and evidence of 'generativity'. Finally, to what extent does the evidence here support the assertion that family memory is 'privatised and parochial'?
In terms of mnemonic practices and material culture, many families had only sketchy knowledge concerning 'key' sites of family memory, for example earlier residences or burial places. Nor had many passed down a great deal in terms of material objects, such as furniture, books, china or documents. All families had some photographs, but in some cases these were relatively few in number and only a few displayed framed family photographs.
In terms of the stories family members narrated about the family past, there was again great variation in content, according to the trajectory of each family history. But on the whole family stories were more common than objects: intangible culture rather than material culture predominated within the family, except in cases when the early deaths of one generation resulted in a storytelling lacuna. Many family stories fitted with the concept of generativity, developed by the psychoanalyst and historian Erik H. Erikson. Generativity concerns the mature adult's concern for and commitment to the next generation; it is argued that the stories passed between generations reflect optimism, and emphasise the positive (such as valued character traits or important life lessons), rather than the negative which are more often blocked. Certainly many stories within this cohort emphasised the positive dimensions of family history, but this was certainly not always the case. Negative stories about past experience served as warnings, or guides to behaviour, particularly for those, for example, who defined themselves as belonging to 'outsider' cultural groups.
Does this, then, support those who perceive the strength of family memory as 'privatised and parochial', disengaged from the broader structures and events of history? The evidence from this research suggests the contrary. Family stories were nearly always outward looking, describing and analysing experiences relating to, for example, migration; ethnic prejudice; labour relations and class; the Second World War; and Cornish self-determination, as well as more diffuse themes such as relating to and caring for those in the community outside the family. Family memory appears to exist along two axes: linear for the family, and horizontal for the social.
Impact
The importance of intangible heritage within the family is therefore far more significant than previously thought and has implications, for example, for both the teaching of history and those working with children orphaned by AIDS. In terms of the latter, South African researchers hearing the initial paper from this project were keen to develop ideas around family history and generativity for their project creating memory boxes. Our research also suggests that the family may be a lens through which the abstract categories of historical structures and events may be effectively connected with individual experience and family memory.
The objectives of this project were to understand the ways in which individuals connect to the past through family history. The research sought to test the findings of two large surveys conducted in the United States and in Australia, both of which found that the most trusted form of historical knowledge is that transmitted within the family, and through eyewitness accounts. This focus upon family memory has been described negatively as representing a 'privatised and parochial past' (Rosenzweig and Thelen, 1998, 186). However, these surveys did not investigate the transmission of family memory in depth, which this project seeks to rectify by exploring the intergenerational oral transmission of historical knowledge within multi-generational families, and the influence of this knowledge upon contemporary identity and popular historical consciousness.
Twelve families were recorded, ranging from four to two generations. Random sampling was used as the primary means to find the oral history cohort, in order to maximise socio-economic diversity among the participants and reach those outside established community elites. Through a random sample of electoral lists in two parliamentary electorates, 300 individuals were contacted by mail. The electorates were selected for their differing socio-economic profiles: Turo and St Austell is primarily small town and rural; Devonport, Plymouth is urban with a large working-class population. The interview cohort finally consisted of twelve families, one of four generations, three of three generations, and eight of two generations. Men and women participated in five families, and women only in seven families.
Interviews were recorded with each individual in the setting of their choice, usually their home. Self-directed life narratives were followed by questions relating to specific topics the researchers wished to raise or explore further. Two broad themes informed the interview questions: the role of material objects as mnemonic devices carrying family history across generations, and the ways in which the family passed on family history orally through stories. In both cases the existing research and historiography is contradictory. On one hand historians argue that families no longer follow mnemonic practices such as visiting cemeteries, while others argue that the family home has become a shrine to the past. Secondly, there is little agreement on the extent to which families pass on oral history or traditions in contemporary western societies.
Results and conclusions
Our conclusions circle around three dimensions of family memory: mnemonic practices and material culture; family storytelling; and evidence of 'generativity'. Finally, to what extent does the evidence here support the assertion that family memory is 'privatised and parochial'?
In terms of mnemonic practices and material culture, many families had only sketchy knowledge concerning 'key' sites of family memory, for example earlier residences or burial places. Nor had many passed down a great deal in terms of material objects, such as furniture, books, china or documents. All families had some photographs, but in some cases these were relatively few in number and only a few displayed framed family photographs.
In terms of the stories family members narrated about the family past, there was again great variation in content, according to the trajectory of each family history. But on the whole family stories were more common than objects: intangible culture rather than material culture predominated within the family, except in cases when the early deaths of one generation resulted in a storytelling lacuna. Many family stories fitted with the concept of generativity, developed by the psychoanalyst and historian Erik H. Erikson. Generativity concerns the mature adult's concern for and commitment to the next generation; it is argued that the stories passed between generations reflect optimism, and emphasise the positive (such as valued character traits or important life lessons), rather than the negative which are more often blocked. Certainly many stories within this cohort emphasised the positive dimensions of family history, but this was certainly not always the case. Negative stories about past experience served as warnings, or guides to behaviour, particularly for those, for example, who defined themselves as belonging to 'outsider' cultural groups.
Does this, then, support those who perceive the strength of family memory as 'privatised and parochial', disengaged from the broader structures and events of history? The evidence from this research suggests the contrary. Family stories were nearly always outward looking, describing and analysing experiences relating to, for example, migration; ethnic prejudice; labour relations and class; the Second World War; and Cornish self-determination, as well as more diffuse themes such as relating to and caring for those in the community outside the family. Family memory appears to exist along two axes: linear for the family, and horizontal for the social.
Impact
The importance of intangible heritage within the family is therefore far more significant than previously thought and has implications, for example, for both the teaching of history and those working with children orphaned by AIDS. In terms of the latter, South African researchers hearing the initial paper from this project were keen to develop ideas around family history and generativity for their project creating memory boxes. Our research also suggests that the family may be a lens through which the abstract categories of historical structures and events may be effectively connected with individual experience and family memory.